It isn’t only RTI activists pointing fingers at Maharashtra’s Chief Information Commissioner Dr Suresh Joshi. State auditors have raised an eyebrow at “irregularities”, both financial and operational. The state audit report, recently unearthed by Pune activist Vihar Durve, rips apart the Chief SIC’s performance and confirms his critics’ allegations over the years.

The document, titled ‘Inspection Report on the Accounts of the Secretary, Maharashtra State Information Commission, for the period from 21.10.2005 to 31.12.2008’, raises an eyebrow on two important observations: (1) Information Commission in general and the Chief SIC in particular were extremely lax in penalizing errant Public Information Officers, and (2) the SIC gave undue benefits to office suppliers. Needless to say, RTI appellants and taxpayers bore the cost of this generosity to PIOs and suppliers – and this was reported by State auditors to the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG).

But a third damning fact emerges from the SIC’s written rejoinder to this report: In June or July 2008, Maharashtra State Information Commission ordered computers and peripherals worth Rs 7.12 lakh, and back-dated these orders by three or four months so as to draw funds from the previous year’s financial budget.

Under the heading ‘Other irregularities’, subhead ‘Non recovery of liquidated damages for delay in supply of materials’, the state audit report notes that the Rate Contract stipulated that: “if the vendor fails to deliver any or all of the equipments within the time period specified in the contract (4 weeks from the date of issue of supply order), the buyer shall deduct the liquidated damages equivalent to 0.5 percent of the price for each week or part thereof during which the delivery of stores is delayed... Scrutiny of records relating to purchase of computers and other peripherals revealed that the supply order was placed on 29.3.2008. However, the supplies were effected in the middle of July 2008. Even though there was a delay of 10 weeks in supply, no penalty was levied or recovered from the Rate Contract firms as detailed.” Ten personal computers, seven notebook computers and ten printers -- totally worth Rs 7,12,310 -- were ordered from three firms viz. Supertron Electronics, ACE Brain Systems & Software, and HCL Info System Ltd. “Thus the department has not levied and recovered the penalty amounting to Rs. 35,616 from the above three firms for delayed supplies…” the report notes.

SIC’s rejoinder to the audit report is even more telling: “It is stated that though supply order bears the date 29.3.2008, they were dispatched late. Considering late issuance of supply order, the material was received in time.” In other words, the SIC wants us to believe that the order was written and signed two days before the end of the financial year, but lay in somebody’s drawer for over two-and-a-half months before being dispatched. Is that plausible? And if so, does this chain of events make this supply contract legal and legitimate?

According to some accountants and tax-consultants, here is a better explanation of the events: In June or July 2008, the Chief SIC decided to purchase computers worth Rs 7.12 lakh from the previous year’s budget before finalizing the books of account. So he misused his powers to “cook the books”. The Chief SIC – directly appointed by the Governor to maintain transparency and accountability in Maharashtra – did the following:
i) colluded with office staff to subvert record-keeping and accounting mechanisms and create a supply-contract that falsely appears to have been written three to months earlier i.e. forgery and falsification of documents
ii)convinced three private suppliers to accept such a contract i.e. conspiracy and corruption
iii) succeeded in drawing lakhs of rupees from the previous year’s budget in the second quarter of the next fiscal year i.e. financial fraud.

NON-LEVY & NON-RECOVERY OF PENALTIES
The audit report also raps the retiring Chief SIC on the knuckles for not penalizing Public Information Officers. Under the heading “Other irregularities”, subhead “Non levy and recovery of penalties u/s 20 of the Act”, the report says, “Against 17,336 cases disposed off, penalty of 18,52,850 was levied in respect of 143 cases and in three cases departmental enquiries were recommended by Commission as detailed below:

Period
Section of Act
No of cases received
No of cases disposed off
No of cases penalized
Amount of penalty levied
12.10.2005 to 31.12.2006
19(3)
5942
621

“Out of the 17336 cases of appeals and complaints under section 19(3) and (18(1) so far disposed, penalty and departmental enquiry was imposed by the commission only in respect of 143 and 3 cases respectively. No penalty was imposed in respect of balance 17190 cases, which were disposed of without any penal action,” the report grimly remarks about the State Commission as a whole. In Dr Suresh Joshi’s own performance, it noted, In 21 cases disposed of at the level of Chief Information Commissioner, penalty of Rs 2,20,000 was imposed, during 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008. Out of this, the penalty of Rs 2,500 in three cases only were reported to have been recovered and credited to government account.”

So the Chief SIC found less than one percent of the PIOs brought before him guilty, and penalty was recovered from about one percent of that one percent. In other words, the message that goes out is: If you are a PIO in Maharashtra whose case actually goes before the SIC, don’t worry, the chances of your being penalized are about one in 10,000!

The state audit report raises questions about many other irregularities at the State Information Commission, including discrepancies in maintenance of cash books and cash management.

SUGGESTED ACTIONS FOR ACTIVISTS
a) Please write complaints based on these facts to the Governor, Chief Secretary and General Administration Department to have Dr Suresh Joshi unceremoniously removed for corruption and moral turpitude. We all know that that his term is ending this month, but he needs to be unceremoniously removed.

This report should act as an eyeopener for the SIC. They should immediately set their house in order. They cannot still take shelter under the excuse that the Act and its implementation is in a nascent stage. Five years are over. That is time enough to get their acts together. But practically speaking, besides causing embarrassment, the Report will not achieve much. That is what past experience with such reports tells us.